Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

mlingley · Mar 8, 2004, 11:31 pm

Have you guys heard how companies wants to start charging people a penny per email? They are saying it is a tactic to cut down on spam.. I think there are probably better ways to shut down spammers. Charging a penny an email would create huge revenues for corporations. I think it's all just a big scam to make more $$$$.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/...e.ap/index.html

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 9, 2004, 12:30 am

There would be no way to enforce it.

Simply route your email around the pay servers.

Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.

mlingley · Mar 9, 2004, 12:44 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
There would be no way to enforce it.

Simply route your email around the pay servers.

Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I know alot of people who don't even own a computer, but email regularly at school.. at the library.. ect..

I agree with you though. People would simply work around something like an email stamp. I think it would make instant messaging more popular.

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 10, 2004, 08:53 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mlingley,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
There would be no way to enforce it.

Simply route your email around the pay servers.

Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I know alot of people who don't even own a computer, but email regularly at school.. at the library.. ect..

I agree with you though. People would simply work around something like an email stamp. I think it would make instant messaging more popular.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

library, school....those people paid for those in one way or another.

**Sean** · Mar 10, 2004, 10:01 am

In any case, the idea is to crackdown on people spamming millions of people. I don't think they can go to their local library to do that (to get around it).

tman_ndsu08 · Mar 10, 2004, 01:16 pm

why not? all they have to do is route their emails around the pay servers.

**Pooeypants** · Mar 10, 2004, 02:38 pm

For some strange reason, I like MS's idea, if someone recieves an email and it's spam, then they can click the reject button and the sender gets charged. Hey presto!

Mar 10, 2004, 09:26 pm

We already pay for E-mail privilages. There should be NO extra charges PERIOD. Spam should be cut down via the software war route.

ruiner · Mar 11, 2004, 01:58 am

pay for email??! next thing you know they will be telling us we have to pay to download music too!

Mia · Mar 11, 2004, 02:01 am

haha!

Simon Jester · Mar 16, 2004, 05:16 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
For some strange reason, I like MS's idea, if someone recieves an email and it's spam, then they can click the reject button and the sender gets charged. Hey presto!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>[font=verdana][color=navy]I don’t like the idea any more than I like CAN SPAM. To be enforceable it would require legislation. The net effect of more legislation is that junk e-mailers will devise even more desperate methods or move to areas that don't have antispam laws. Principal junk e-mailers are already primarily offshore, using leagues of hijacked broadband computers all over the world to send their unwanted e-mail.

There are more effective ways to dealing with the problem. For instance, broadband ISPs can start by shutting off cable modems for spam drones that their customers refuse to secure and enforcing acceptable use policies. [/font][/color]

haoqide · Mar 18, 2004, 04:52 pm

I personally think it's asinine to even suggest that we get charged for e-mail. Like somebody else said earlier, people would just find a way around it, for one thing. Second, ummm....last time I checked, the internet was INTERNATIONAL, not just in the U.S. It's arrogant to think that the U.S. OWNS the internet...being that the internet is international, and its respective (but not necessarily respectable) members are all over the world, how could any legislation actually solve the spam problem? If legislation is passed in the United States, well, then the spammers will just start moving their servers overseas and continue their irritating practices.

And the suggestion Gates (or whoever it was) made that we be forced to play a game for 10 seconds before sending an e-mail is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't wanna be forced to play a moronic game just to send a message. That's worse than the spam itself.

What a load.

shunyadragon · Mar 20, 2004, 07:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
There would be no way to enforce it.

Simply route your email around the pay servers.

Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The government could control it easily and the spammers would pay the bill. It would be the common people who would suffer when the penny became two, than three, than four and soooooo on. Just like postage. The government would make the e-mail subject to a postage stamp and up the rate when they say they need more money$$$$$$$$$.

The spammers would negociate with the lobbiests to keep the rate at one cent for them the same way they did with bulk mail. Junk gets the lower rate.

Sandy · Mar 20, 2004, 08:26 am

I change my email address about once a year. It forces me to clean out my address book and save only those people who I want to continue to correspond with. I had to do this in August of this year as I was receiving 300 spam emails each day. I got tired of deleting them all and simply changed my address. Much easier! since I print my own stationary on my computer it was a simple change to make.

m3talsmith · Mar 20, 2004, 10:26 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I work at an ISP and that part is absolutely true. We charge extra for those who send over a certain limit of email. Truth is Spammers do pay for email. I have a friend that works for a pro spammer company. They have a server farm of 50 and a class C that they rotate the ip's every hour. What his company does is provide the service to spammers and adware/spyware people. Then they make software to counter it. It's a very tidy business for them and very profitable. And yes the spammers pay for it constantly.

So for those who really know the business, you'll know how stupid this idea is. Charging for email is simply going to hurt the normal users who don't have a way to afford it: you actually promote profitable uses of email, because there has to be a reason to use something if it cost you. Spammers are the main ones that actually do profit from it. That's why they actually are increasing in this business and make millions doing it.

Think about it for a bit. Do your research, and you'll see what I mean.

Mar 31, 2004, 08:12 pm

I have to add that I do not believe we should pay any more for E-mail service. This is just a tactic for companies to grab an extra buck. I would like to see anti-spam software that either blocks spam or maybe something that you can return the spam mail to its origin with a little extra surprise.

Apr 8, 2004, 04:55 am

I started an open source project that aims to solve the spam problem and other problems, based on sender authentication by a trust system (that would keep communications free and need no challenge/response mechanism either; it replaces the email protocol by a forums system): Trust-forum project.

Apr 8, 2004, 05:07 am

I think Bill gates is just a little uneasy about not being the #1 man right now (the dollar depreciation puts him at #2).

God bless Ikea, the current #1

Domino · Apr 9, 2004, 04:45 pm

I'll just put a false IP origin on my emails, and whoever lives at 255.255.255.255 will be receiving my bill. The people I email will know who they should really reply to. In fact, I might just have to whip up a program that will handle the details of this automatically, put it out as freeware, and have it bill everything to the RIAA

Autophage · Apr 9, 2004, 10:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,)
I think Bill gates is just a little uneasy about not being the #1 man right now (the dollar depreciation puts him at #2).

God bless Ikea, the current #1 <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is interesting... what was your source?

Mar 9, 2004, 12:44 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) There would be no way to enforce it. Simply route your email around the pay servers. Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I know alot of people who don't even own a computer, but email regularly at school.. at the library.. ect.. I agree with you though. People would simply work around something like an email stamp. I think it would make instant messaging more popular.

Mar 10, 2004, 08:53 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mlingley,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) There would be no way to enforce it. Simply route your email around the pay servers. Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I know alot of people who don't even own a computer, but email regularly at school.. at the library.. ect.. I agree with you though. People would simply work around something like an email stamp. I think it would make instant messaging more popular.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> library, school....those people paid for those in one way or another.

Mar 10, 2004, 10:01 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	In any case, the idea is to crackdown on people spamming millions of people. I don't think they can go to their local library to do that (to get around it). So it goes

Mar 10, 2004, 02:38 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,471	For some strange reason, I like MS's idea, if someone recieves an email and it's spam, then they can click the reject button and the sender gets charged. Hey presto! War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Mar 11, 2004, 02:01 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Mia Retired Posts: 7,312	haha! "...with like-minded people one cannot discuss. With like-minded people one can only participate in a church service, and you know how I feel about church services." Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Mar 8, 2004, 11:31 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
mlingley Molten Ash Posts: 120	Have you guys heard how companies wants to start charging people a penny per email? They are saying it is a tactic to cut down on spam.. I think there are probably better ways to shut down spammers. Charging a penny an email would create huge revenues for corporations. I think it's all just a big scam to make more $$$$. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/...e.ap/index.html

Mar 9, 2004, 12:30 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	There would be no way to enforce it. Simply route your email around the pay servers. Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.

Mar 10, 2004, 01:16 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	why not? all they have to do is route their emails around the pay servers.

Mar 10, 2004, 09:26 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	We already pay for E-mail privilages. There should be NO extra charges PERIOD. Spam should be cut down via the software war route.

Mar 11, 2004, 01:58 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	pay for email??! next thing you know they will be telling us we have to pay to download music too!

Mar 16, 2004, 05:16 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Simon Jester Sedimentary Rock Location: 127.1.1.1 Posts: 16	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) For some strange reason, I like MS's idea, if someone recieves an email and it's spam, then they can click the reject button and the sender gets charged. Hey presto!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>[font=verdana][color=navy]I don’t like the idea any more than I like CAN SPAM. To be enforceable it would require legislation. The net effect of more legislation is that junk e-mailers will devise even more desperate methods or move to areas that don't have antispam laws. Principal junk e-mailers are already primarily offshore, using leagues of hijacked broadband computers all over the world to send their unwanted e-mail. There are more effective ways to dealing with the problem. For instance, broadband ISPs can start by shutting off cable modems for spam drones that their customers refuse to secure and enforcing acceptable use policies. [/font][/color]

Mar 18, 2004, 04:52 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
haoqide Sedimentary Rock Posts: 13	I personally think it's asinine to even suggest that we get charged for e-mail. Like somebody else said earlier, people would just find a way around it, for one thing. Second, ummm....last time I checked, the internet was INTERNATIONAL, not just in the U.S. It's arrogant to think that the U.S. OWNS the internet...being that the internet is international, and its respective (but not necessarily respectable) members are all over the world, how could any legislation actually solve the spam problem? If legislation is passed in the United States, well, then the spammers will just start moving their servers overseas and continue their irritating practices. And the suggestion Gates (or whoever it was) made that we be forced to play a game for 10 seconds before sending an e-mail is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I don't wanna be forced to play a moronic game just to send a message. That's worse than the spam itself. What a load.

Mar 20, 2004, 07:30 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) There would be no way to enforce it. Simply route your email around the pay servers. Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The government could control it easily and the spammers would pay the bill. It would be the common people who would suffer when the penny became two, than three, than four and soooooo on. Just like postage. The government would make the e-mail subject to a postage stamp and up the rate when they say they need more money$$$$$$$$$. The spammers would negociate with the lobbiests to keep the rate at one cent for them the same way they did with bulk mail. Junk gets the lower rate. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Mar 20, 2004, 08:26 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Sandy Igneous Magma Posts: 232	I change my email address about once a year. It forces me to clean out my address book and save only those people who I want to continue to correspond with. I had to do this in August of this year as I was receiving 300 spam emails each day. I got tired of deleting them all and simply changed my address. Much easier! since I print my own stationary on my computer it was a simple change to make.

Mar 20, 2004, 10:26 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
m3talsmith Igneous Magma Location: Southern, MI Posts: 400	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) Hell, you already DO pay for email..it's called an ISP.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I work at an ISP and that part is absolutely true. We charge extra for those who send over a certain limit of email. Truth is Spammers do pay for email. I have a friend that works for a pro spammer company. They have a server farm of 50 and a class C that they rotate the ip's every hour. What his company does is provide the service to spammers and adware/spyware people. Then they make software to counter it. It's a very tidy business for them and very profitable. And yes the spammers pay for it constantly. So for those who really know the business, you'll know how stupid this idea is. Charging for email is simply going to hurt the normal users who don't have a way to afford it: you actually promote profitable uses of email, because there has to be a reason to use something if it cost you. Spammers are the main ones that actually do profit from it. That's why they actually are increasing in this business and make millions doing it. Think about it for a bit. Do your research, and you'll see what I mean. One vote for for Freedom. One vote for Michael Badnarik for President. One vote that won't be wasted this year.

Mar 31, 2004, 08:12 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
dave654 Guest Posts: n/a	I have to add that I do not believe we should pay any more for E-mail service. This is just a tactic for companies to grab an extra buck. I would like to see anti-spam software that either blocks spam or maybe something that you can return the spam mail to its origin with a little extra surprise.

Apr 8, 2004, 04:55 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
spoirier Guest Posts: n/a	I started an open source project that aims to solve the spam problem and other problems, based on sender authentication by a trust system (that would keep communications free and need no challenge/response mechanism either; it replaces the email protocol by a forums system): Trust-forum project.

Apr 8, 2004, 05:07 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
dotComa Guest Posts: n/a	I think Bill gates is just a little uneasy about not being the #1 man right now (the dollar depreciation puts him at #2). God bless Ikea, the current #1

Apr 9, 2004, 04:45 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Domino I'm a pushover Posts: 334	I'll just put a false IP origin on my emails, and whoever lives at 255.255.255.255 will be receiving my bill. The people I email will know who they should really reply to. In fact, I might just have to whip up a program that will handle the details of this automatically, put it out as freeware, and have it bill everything to the RIAA kill President attack nuclear bomb smuggle Echelon just recorded this message.

Apr 9, 2004, 10:15 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Autophage Molten Ash Location: Washington, DC-ish Posts: 103	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (dotComa,) I think Bill gates is just a little uneasy about not being the #1 man right now (the dollar depreciation puts him at #2). God bless Ikea, the current #1 <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is interesting... what was your source?